I'm not a fast-jet nor CAS guy, but none of the aircraft-specific kit I've worked with in my 16+yrs with USAF ever used DD:MM:SS that I can recall....

The handheld units, on the other hand, often have changeable units so that you can "speak" to others not using a standard. Standards are typically spelled out in SPINs. That doesn't prevent the odd fat-finger SNAFU of someone on the ground inadvertently changing their units on their hand-held devices.

In no way am I even implying that is the case here - I don't even know what they were using. I'm simply stating that if it's a question of units, it's just as likely to be the handheld vs aircraft...

Someone mentioned TGO laser guidance - sadly, it's not always an option for reasons, various.

Old aircraft, such those you flew Beagle, used degrees, minutes and seconds; most modern military aircraft use degrees and decimal minutes; some use degrees, minutes and decimal seconds. Which can cause confusion.

Modern C4I systems know of the problem and annotate their output format is known. Older systems require the receiving system to know which format the legacy system uses.

With data link systems, such as L11 and L16, the postion is given in yet other formats (did mention GEOREF and range & bearing from a daum n which(?) format).

On top of such is issues is, of course, the problem of which Geodatum the maps/system is being used on each end as well as the coordinate system. Not all maps are in WGS84, let alone Lat&Long, or UTM, or MGRS.

In short, it's not any simple question, and there is no easy answer, particularly with errors creeping in with conversion between systems/datums.

But it doubt severely it had anything at all to do with the incident in question...

Given the piece that Nigegilb quotes, and the testimony by tuc of the wanton and incompetent waste exercised by the MOD, I have every sympathy with the US CAS guys. They must dread a call from the Brits, with their limited or complete lack of equipment to make this hazardous procedure less so. Bits of Orange Dayglo Panels etc are no longer good enough, even the Taliban could presumably rise to that. If our leaders insist on our troops fighting side by side with the USA, then they should be equipped to the same degree especially with regard to communications and IFF. I suspect that US training presupposes the possession of such equipment by ground troops that they are supporting, and it is possible that given the media hype over this and other incidents they may yet insist on that. In the circumstances that may be no bad thing, for if the MOD is not prepared to equip our troops properly for their own sake perhaps it would do so for the sake of the "Special Relationship"!
Of course as already said, it may well be that this tragedy was caused by entirely different circumstances, hopefully we will eventually be told, to some degree or other. But the general situation regarding ground equipment for CAS operation would appear to be yet another MOD dog's breakfast to add to all the others. Brown can mutter all he likes but lives are on the line here and wars cost money so he should pay up! The tragedy is that these lives are lost now and many more lives ruined as a result, that is the real waste of the "metropolis of waste" of the MOD!
RIP lads and my very sincere condolences to your loved ones left to grieve for you.

"The classic example which most can understand is their long time insistence on high quality real time video over BOWMAN VHF, but there are hundreds more. What planet……?"

Erm, sorry? Did you just say what it looks like you just said?

R

SLF

Yes. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to introduce brevity into such a serious and tragic thread.

My point was to illustrate what I believe to be a serious deficiency in the acquisition system whereby much needed kit is delayed or rendered unaffordable by “requirements” which have supposedly been robustly scrutinised for feasibility. They waste resources - time, money and manpower. A procurer can no longer dismiss such a “requirement” as an aberration. It will be set in concrete as far as the bureaucrats are concerned and it takes an age and a day to persuade the “system” that it should not be in your remit, especially if it is a Key User Requirement. All procurers will understand what I mean. You are answerable to an IPT “Management Board”, many of whom will be junior to you and non-technical, for the delivery of complex technical systems which few of them can begin to understand. If you’re arguing with them over something that defies the laws of physics, you’re being unnecessarily diverted from delivering proper capability. This is an everyday occurrence.

Sorry about the drift but it’s directly relevant to the general problem of ill-equipped troops, which will inevitably raise its head again when the Select Committee sit again to discuss the lack of progress on Combat ID.

From today's Times;

"The present rates in both theatres [Iraq and Afghanistan] are what you would expect for major hostilities, rather than the low-intensity warfare that the fighting is portrayed as being,” she said.

British concerns over the problem led the US air force to loan 12 Rover video receivers to the British forces in Afghanistan. These allow the British forward air controller to see precisely what the US pilot is seeing through his cockpit video.

Critics point out that 12 is not sufficient to ensure that every patrol on the ground has one. They question why, given how often US pilots provide close air support, the MoD does not buy more video receivers itself."

So, the nickname, the "borrowers", which part timer Browne denied was true a few months ago, now appears to have high level support.

US pilots must dread being called in to support British troops on the ground. The efficacy of the MoD and Service Chiefs at a time of war. Has anyone told them we have been fighting in Afg for 5 years?